/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

It's extremely difficult to imagine because it will be so radically from any previous societies, but I honestly think your Federation analogy isn't very far off.

I think the reason people have generally put so little effort into describing a future communist society is because it's just not very practical and we have no real way of predicting the future. It may look like what we imagine, or it may look radically different, but either way, it's sure to spectacularly better than what we have now and that's all that really matters.

>>397602
So you know how shit sucks because our governments and trade unions have so much power?
Imagine if we gave them ALL the power, that will solve our problems.

>“The great basic thought,” Engels writes, “that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away… this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted. But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things…. For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain.” Thus, according to Marx, dialectics is “the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought.”

[…]

>A development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis ("the negation of the negation"), a development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; "breaks in continuity"; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; the interdependence and the closest and indissoluble connection between all aspects of any phenomenon (history constantly revealing ever new aspects), a connection that provides a uniform, and universal process of motion, one that follows definite laws – these are some of the features of dialectics as a doctrine of development that is richer than the conventional one.

– Lenin

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch02.htm

Everything will be the same plus free healthcare ,college and red coating everywhere

>>398017
we should update this
for example
>the transformation of quantity into quality
is now called a phase change.

>>397602
Stellaris. Not Star Trek, but Stellaris, because imagine all that fucking power ordinary people will have. A dictatorship of all proles over the universe.

>>397602
there's a gun to everyone's head in the world we're in right now. You either work or starve. It's absolutely slavery.
Life under communism is pulling that gun away as much as possible. Could you imagine not having to get out of bed in the morning if you don't want to? Or hell, even if you still have to, for a minor fraction of the time you do now. The rest of that time can be spent doing whatever you want, without trying to be sold shit or having to worry about running out of dosh. Where can you even go for free right now out side of a diminishing amount of parks and libraries?
Also shit would be a lot safer. If you can get what you need to live comfortably, you're not gonna mug people. You're not going to worry about something trying to rip you off or breaking some arcane rule by interacting with them. We live such alienated, cold lives and it's by design. Hell, even getting around in a capitalist state is hellish because of our car consumerism. There's anons reading this that couldn't walk to get a bite to eat at any time of the day.
When you're going to work, try and notice all the ads just shoved in your face constantly. Imagine if all of that was either totally gone or replaced with art.
When trying to picture what a "communist" world would look like, I'm gonna be honest, the macro element is out of my purview. I'm an anon with a burger high school education and no family connections, if the revolution came tomorrow I'd probably be doing the """entry level""" work I'm doing right now (which is just babysitting a building and occasionally handing out toilet paper). But even just these relatively basic changes would make me magnitudes happier than I am now. All the little indignities that are shoved down my throat by the market go up in flames, and what's left is a kinder world. I'd gladly give up dortios and new video cards every 5 years for that sense of peace.

>>397602
Communism is an highly abstract concept arrived at by the logic of historical materialism, ie when productive forces develop so that classes no longer exist, and so the state no longer exists. What it means in concrete terms is anyone's guess. Communism implies abundance ie "fully automated luxury gay space communism" which is a stretch to assume. I personally don't see how a technologically sophisticated society can exist without accordingly sophisticated organizational structure, ie the state.

The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin does a good job of showing what a classless society might look like and also answers many of the common questions like 'who would do the rubbish jobs?' (answer: people do them out of pride)

>>398010
What's your argument monkey? "The world is bad becuz gubmint and trade unions" I don't accept that premise to begin with, so why should I accept your retarded roganite monkeydom?

>>398059
May be someone will find my explanation less abstract.

What is meant by highly developed productive forces? High productivity (number of products produced per hour) alone do not imply no private property. Private property can be highly productive. If we go back to 150 years ago, given low education in general, it was productive to manage uneducated workers. At a factory the manager will split the problem of production into many trivial problems for workers. This is very high division of labor, the workers do trivial tasks, manager do planning. You should see how private property stem from this. Communism is when this division of labor is no longer as productive, the workers do not need managers anymore or at least not on full time position. Private property is manager-owner who is doing management full time, if this is no longer productive, private property can't form.

The capitalist state is too, high division of labor. The communist "state", with lower division of labor, will be smaller in hierarchy, but bigger, since lower division of labor, more organizations, etc.

So communism is high productivity but at the same time the division of labor is low. May be this will help to deduce something on communism organization.

>>398064
Another word for classes is hierarchies. The problem with Marxists understanding of class, is that it doesn't include evolutionary biology. Class, or hierarchies cannot go away. You can simply artificially assert one class into the position of a higher class. Great, now nature is inverted and you end up with the Soviet Union.
>people do lowly jobs out of a sense of pride
A few might, but most posters to this board act as if work of any kind is drudgery to them. Yet they idealize the working class? It's a contradiction.

>>398147
>muh human nature
Oh you poluyghur, never change

>>398165
Just look at his flag it tells them all.

>>398147
>Another word for classes is hierarchies
Stopped reading there

>>398174
Well… tbh… it's so similar in concept he may confuse it between the two. And I'm rather confused to by what he said.

>>398147
>Another word for classes is hierarchies

Eugenics-kun tier understanding of class. Both of you are fascist faggots anyways.

The reason Marx never tried to give a full description of what communism would be is because he doesn't pretend to know. He's not a utopian and we can only make some judgement on what the society would look like when the relation to labor, value, property completely changes. But we can't really know what it will be like, we're inside our bubble of capitalism, with all the thought patterns that come with that, trying to look out.

I think worrying about the mechanics of labor vouchers and similar things isn't a real problem, the mechanics of that can be worked out when capital is defeated.

>>398165
>>398173
>we lub science when it validates the idea that women have penises
You'll never learn.

>>398190
Ok, the who are the proles today? Some LeftyPol fauxcialist who codes for a living.
And who are bourgs? Some warehouse worker who supports a family on $18 an hour.

Your ideology belongs in the dust bin of history. There's nothing valid about it today.

>>397602
>The closest thing I imagine is unironically the Federation from Star Trek (old trek, not disgusting NuTrek), what am I missing here? is there something I need to read, more Marx or what?
This.

>>398224
Your flag tells it all.

>>398147
>You can simply artificially assert one class into the position of a higher class. Great, now nature is inverted
Nature was inverted by the higher class well before the French Revolution. Tell me this face is human nature.

>>398227
Idc. Stalin replaced the monarchy, and became king. Prove me wrong..

>>398229
No dice komrade.
Compare Chad Tsar Nicholas with Seethe Virgin Trotsky
That would make more of a fitting comparison

>>398231
So what?

>>398230
Stalin is the general secretary of the USSR and he is of proletarian blood. His dad is a drunk shoemaker while his mom… usual SAHM wife. He is one of those old bolsheviks who opposed the monarchy, gets arrested several times, and doesn't even have royal ties. Prove me wrong

>>398243
Fine, but his ascension to a higher class means he's essentially like a Cromwell figure. Stalin lived in a large, private house. He had a butler. He had cooks. He was not a fucking prole at that point. Class isn't rigid and set in stone..

>>398224
I'd be surprised if many people here are coders. I'm a warehouse worker making 13€ an hour (production bonuses included) and know from years of posting here that this is not usual.

As for history, well, it has a way of catching you off guard. Marx and Engels, and Lenin after them, have been largely vindicated, though not completely of course.

>>398243
>>398253
Stalin didn't consider himself to be "of proletarian blood". His class background was interesting. His father was a small business owner at a point, and Stalin called himself in one speech "the son of an exploiter". The inbred Nazi poster is correct in that class isn't set in stone. A Morach he wasn't, the idea is stupid. He lived in wealth, but he wasn't a leach like the Morachs or Capitalists. As long as states exist, the statesmen will convince themselves they deserve to live in extravagance because of the hard work and preassures they're under. Yeah it's "le ironic", but oh well.

>>398310 (me)
*know from years of posting here that this is not unusual

>>398233
And trotsky merked the white army.